|
Suppose, however, that pleasure did not result from the good
but there were something preceding pleasure and accounting for
it, would not this be a thing to be embraced?
But when we say "to be embraced" we say "pleasure."
But what if accepting its existence, we think of that existence
as leaving still the possibility that it were not a thing to be
embraced?
This would mean the good being present and the sentient possessor
failing, nonetheless, to perceive it.
It would seem possible, however, to perceive and yet be unmoved
by the possession; this is quite likely in the case of the wiser
and least dependent- and indeed it is so with the First, immune
not merely because simplex, but because pleasure by acquisition
implies lack.
But all this will become clear on the solution of our remaining
difficulties and the rebuttal of the argument brought up against
us. This takes the form of the question: "What gain is there in
the Good to one who, fully conscious, feels nothing when he hears
of these things, whether because he has no grasp of them but
takes merely the words or because he holds to false values,
perhaps being all in search of sense, finding his good in money
or such things?"
The answer is that even in his disregard of the good proposed he
is with us in setting a good before him but fails to see how the
good we define fits into his own conception. It is impossible to
say "Not that" if one is utterly without experience or conception
of the "That"; there will generally have been, even, some inkling
of the good beyond Intellection. Besides, one attaining or
approaching the good, but not recognising it, may assure himself
in the light of its contraries; otherwise he will not even hold
ignorance an evil though everyone prefers to know and is proud of
knowing so that our very sensations seek to ripen into knowledge.
If the knowing principle- and specially primal
Intellectual-Principle- is valuable and beautiful, what must be
present to those of power to see the Author and Father of
Intellect? Anyone thinking slightingly of this principle of Life
and Being brings evidence against himself and all his state: of
course, distaste for the life that is mingled with death does not
touch that Life Authentic.
|
|